Talk:Blair Swannell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBlair Swannell has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 5, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 6, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that British Isles and Australian rugby player Blair Swannell played every game in the same pair of unwashed breeches?

Online resources to build from[edit]

Military Cross[edit]

While the CWGC publication about rugby players killed in WWI does say he got the MC, their actual casualty record for him does not mention it, and their is no mention in his service record either. Nor can I trace the award in the London Gazette at present. David Underdown (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blair Swannell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Brad78 (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial thoughts

  • Personal history
    • I know his date of birth is in the lead and infobox, but is there any reason not to include it in the first line of the personal section? It looks a bit vague just to list his year of birth there.
    • Do you know if he had any siblings?
    • Why did he make his first trip to Australia? Is there any significance to this? I suspect so given his links later in life.
      Article now states 'as a mate on a schooner'. It was his occupation. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rugby career
    • I suspect Tests is correct with a capital, but I'm unsure Third in Third Test should be capitalised.
      It changes from book to book and site to site, but have made lower case.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any stats for his career
      We have found statistics for his Northampton career, but although appearing pretty solid is not acceptable by Wikipedia standards. We could place them in, but would be unable to attach a source. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsourced sections
    • There were previously two "citation needed" tags which need addressing.
      Both addressed. One by removal (until we can re-find) the source, and the second reworded and cited.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a third such tag which probably needs a reference.
      Reference given for the match.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second paragraph of the rugby career section is entirely unreferenced.
      References added.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chronology
    • I understand why you've written this into two succinct sections. However, I'm not sure it works flitting from early army career to his later army career and death then back to rugby career in the middle. Do you have any thoughts on this?
      It's difficult to cog the work together, but we have now moved the Gallipoli campaign to the end. So at least the article finishes with his death. Is this more acceptable? FruitMonkey (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my first thoughts on the review. I hope you can look at these suggestions or make some changes. Brad78 (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    see comments above about unsourced sentences/passages
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    see couple of comments above about extra information, though I doubt this is going to be key to a pass/fail
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Brad78 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks really good. Thanks for getting back on all my queries, and for the expansion. Couple of final points:

  • Should it be SS Afric or SS Africa?
  • Some of the reference titles are all in caps. Even if that's the title of the web page, it should be lower case as per WP:ALLCAPS.

Once, they're done, I'll come back for one final look. Brad78 (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, FM's edit got me there too - it is SS Afric. Shows up in the service record: go to page 44 - I also searched for the actual ship by that name, and it confirmed the name. The hastily converted a vessel to be a troop transport, and it was subsequently sunk by a torpedo in the Mediterranean. I was not sure what policy was with ALL cap titles in citations. I will change them to lower case. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. SauliH (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for all the work, and some great expansion during the GAN process. This is a very tidy, interesting piece of work especially on a player from the past. You've done some great research on it, and you should both be proud of this piece of work.

Everything above is now in order, and all the GA criteria have been passed. I'm not sure how much more work would needed to get this to FAC, but perhaps it might be worth a shot, even as simply a peer review or suggestions at the appropriate projects (military history and rugby union) to see what else can be achieved.

Thanks very much for a lovely piece of work and your help in the GA process. Brad78 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further adds[edit]

SauliH (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last link doesn't work for me, is it his service record? This, http://mappingouranzacs.naa.gov.au/file-view.html?b=8096469&s=B2455&c=SWANNELL%20BLAIR%20INSKIP should work better. The letter I presume you are referring to seems to be page 15, not 16. I don't think it's posthumous, merely that the commissioning parchment was among his personal effects at the time of death, and so it was returned to his mother as his next of kin and (presumably) beneficiary. Just as earlier in the fil there is a note recording the despatch of his identity disc (ie dog tags). That said, I can't quite work out when he'd have received this. I thought you only received a commissioning parchment when you were first commissioned, so it would normally be in the rank of second lieutenant. David Underdown (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand he was the rank of Major in the AIF and not the British Army which is the crux of the question... Captain is below Major no? One key point is the letter written in return for the receipt of the letter, look at the next page : "for form of commission and secure (?) receipt of same only regreting he never saw it." Apologies for not highlighting this point above. That would seem to indicate that he was never in ownership of that form. SauliH (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further on through his file, I think the "regular British forces" bit on the pre-printed form may be a bit of a red herring, possibly using up stocks of old forms. If you browse through, you'll see that he was initially appointed a captain in the AIF on 3 September 1914, so I suspect the commissioning parchment relates to this. I guess he never saw it because it was kept on his file at base records, and would have been given to him on his return to Australia, had he survived. This sort of thing is of course why we're not supposed to engage in original research. David Underdown (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I do not pretend to know what I am talking about! You can understand my curiousity though in that if there were a difference between commissions in the AIF and the British Army, this would be something to note. Thankyou for patiently elucidating this for me: the way that you explain it makes sense, and I can see that there is nothing more here than an interesting exchange between a grieving mother and military protocol. SauliH (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blair Swannell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blair_Swannell&oldid=1210588732"